Furthermore, I find that younger men and women are much more idealistic. Most that Iíve talked to that are younger than me (48) believe that it should be governmentís role to provide for the disadvantaged, underprivileged, destitute, needy, and poor. I bring up entitlement reforms and they donít want to hear it. I think that a lot of them believe that the rich are just like Gordon Gecko. Iíve heard it attributed to Churchill, but itís not his quote: "If you're not a liberal when you're 25, you have no heart. If you're not a conservative by the time you're 35, you have no brain."

I think there's no question that certain aspects of the Republican platform are not too appealing to certain groups of non-whites, esp their stance on immigration.

Understatement. In fact, if I had to pick the single most costly blunder in Romney's campaign, it was his comments about immigration.

Quote:

Originally Posted by MiddleAgedAl

I think there's also no question that if you look at any available studies of birthrates, and you see the number of children white couples are having compared the number of children non-whites are having (esp the hispanics who are affected by the immigration stance), there is an ever growing gap there too.

Yes indeed. Whites are an ever shrinking demographic group. If the GOP continues to preach to that choir, they will continue to lose elections.

Quote:

Originally Posted by MiddleAgedAl

On top of that, you could argue that the Republicans are a party whose policies benefit the self-sufficient and affluent more. Again, studies all continue to show that career-oriented, college educated professionals (regardless of race), who statistically tend to earn more, also tend to have their first child later in life than those who dont study past high school, and to compound that, they also end up having fewer children in total by the time they reach the end of their childbearing years.

In theory, maybe. But in reality, that has not been the case, at least not in the past decade or so. I don't blame the past GOP administrations solely, though. It's just been the overall trend. The vast majority of "career-oriented, college educated professionals" are middle class folks, and their piece of the pie has been shrinking as companies cut back on workforces by shipping jobs overseas and forcing remaining workers to work more and longer hours. It's damn difficult in some companies for people to take what little vacation time they earn. Add to that the problem of health insurance costs, student loan repayment, mortgage woes, and the general cost of living, and many of those career oriented folks are suddenly living paycheck to paycheck.

When you have the Dems offering a glimmer of hope that health care *may* improve (and I don't think anyone can say for sure because there are so many variables) and the GOP talking about overturning the health care laws and taking away that hope, then you have those career-oriented soccer moms voting for Obama (unless they're pro-lifers).

Quote:

Originally Posted by MiddleAgedAl

Anyone who understands what binary exponentiation is can tell you there will be an ever increasing gap in the size of the target audience.

Demographically, there is a big problem there for the Republicans that will only get worse with time.

Exactly right.

Quote:

Originally Posted by MiddleAgedAl

The part that must be really frustrating for long-time Republican party members, especially those who were not born with a silver spoon in their mouth and earned their wealth, is that they can see that it is actually in the self-interest of these soon-to-no-longer-be-minority groups to work harder at improving their lives to the point where they would fall into the category of people who would actually benefit MORE from the current Republican platform than the Democratic one! Especially the fiscal/tax aspects of it. There are things they have 100% control over to increase their chances of getting there; have fewer kids so that you can afford to better provide for the ones you do have, send them to college so that future generations benefit, etc. But, birthrate studies show that ain't happening in big numbers, at least not yet.

I don't agree with the part in bold because I think the only folks who benefit from the current Republican fiscal platform are business owners and the wealthy. Otherwise, I agree with your statement. All segments of society have it within their power to reduce their cost of living, *especially* by not having kids they can't afford.

Quote:

Originally Posted by MiddleAgedAl

What should the Republicans do ? Change portions of their platform to appeal to those who choose to not act in their own long term best interest?

No, change the part of their platform that alienates the growing demographic segment you spoke about. And dump the Christian Right. They'll vote GOP anyway even if the GOP ignores them because they've grown to hate the Dems and there is no other choice.

I have always chosen to act in my own self-interest. I'm one of your "career-oriented, college-educated professionals." My wife and I have been careful to not overextend. We bought a house that was well within our ability to support on just one of our paychecks. We save a bundle every year for retirement (just over 15% of gross) and have been doing so for a decade now. We don't live in an area we'd like to live; we live where we can afford to live given our incomes and goals. And I don't like seeing people who have done nothing with their lives suck off the gov't. So I would seem to be the type of person you say would benefit from the current GOP platform. I don't see it that way, though.

I have seen a devastating illness almost destroy what little wealth my parents were able to put away for retirement. We're now dealing with the same problem in my wife's family. If one of your parents develops Alzheimer's or some other disease or affliction which ends up requiring long-term care, it can drain a large nest egg in just a few years. The rules surrounding medicare support leave you almost no liquid assets at all once the basic level of support is exhausted.

I have seen my retirement accounts take a huge hit because an underegulated and undersupervised market was allowed to play games with shaky deals using my money. Ask the folks at ENRON or any of the other huckster companies who lost billions on stupid gambles while their execs walked away with mega-bonuses how they feel about the GOP wanting to deregulate. (And I'm not blaming just the GOP for the 2008 mess. I know Clinton and his administration were a party to deregulation as well.)

Ask the career-oriented, college educated teachers how they feel about the GOP busting their unions and trying to take away the pensions they've earned.

There are many career-oriented, college educated classes of people who do not think the GOP platform will benefit them in the long or short term. But those people are written off by the GOP as part of Romney's 47%. I got news for Mr. Romney, I know many voters who voted for him who are squarely in that 47%. That's right, GOP die-hards who are receiving gov't assistance of some sort. Go figure.

I'm no fan of Obama as I tend to be a fiscal conservative and I don't like seeing the waste of stimulus funds that I've seen. But I haven't seen any fiscal responsibility from the GOP in decades. They talk a good game, but check the record of the past 40 years and see how the deficit and national debt have climbed under the various administrations. The GOP has consistently failed when it comes to fiscal responsibility. Add to that the idiotic obsession with social issues demanded by the Christian Right and I just have to shake my head in wonder why Romney et al think they deserve my vote.

I think there's no question that certain aspects of the Republican platform are not too appealing to certain groups of non-whites, esp their stance on immigration.

I think there's also no question that if you look at any available studies of birthrates, and you see the number of children white couples are having compared the number of children non-whites are having (esp the hispanics who are affected by the immigration stance), there is an ever growing gap there too.

On top of that, you could argue that the Republicans are a party whose policies benefit the self-sufficient and affluent more. Again, studies all continue to show that career-oriented, college educated professionals (regardless of race), who statistically tend to earn more, also tend to have their first child later in life than those who dont study past high school, and to compound that, they also end up having fewer children in total by the time they reach the end of their childbearing years.

Anyone who understands what binary exponentiation is can tell you there will be an ever increasing gap in the size of the target audience.

Demographically, there is a big problem there for the Republicans that will only get worse with time.

The part that must be really frustrating for long-time Republican party members, especially those who were not born with a silver spoon in their mouth and earned their wealth, is that they can see that it is actually in the self-interest of these soon-to-no-longer-be-minority groups to work harder at improving their lives to the point where they would fall into the category of people who would actually benefit MORE from the current Republican platform than the Democratic one! Especially the fiscal/tax aspects of it. There are things they have 100% control over to increase their chances of getting there; have fewer kids so that you can afford to better provide for the ones you do have, send them to college so that future generations benefit, etc. But, birthrate studies show that ain't happening in big numbers, at least not yet.

What should the Republicans do ? Change portions of their platform to appeal to those who choose to not act in their own long term best interest?

Good post. You may be surprised to hear that I agree with almost everything you have said. Let me say upfront I'm a Democrat and I know why I'm a Democrat. I'm also an African American who is socially liberal and who understands and appreciates fiscal conservatism. I'm college educated, have my own business and have never been on welfare. My folks struggled and worked hard to make a decent life for our family. No one in my family has ever been on welfare. We were always encouraged to work hard, get good grades in school and be the best we can be. I'm frustrated by the fact the Republican party has historically been non representative of minorities and takes a hard line on social issues. It's hard to hear a message no matter how well intentioned or potentially beneficial it may be if the messenger is demonizing and mischaracterizing who you are or signaling in other ways you are not welcome or important. I know for a fact there are a lot of African Americans who would be Republicans if they felt sincerely welcomed by the party. I strongly suspect the same sentiment is probably true for other minorities such as Hispanics and Asians who are currently strongly trending Democrat. In a two party system it's insane to me that both parties are not equally welcoming and inclusive of everyone. Today they are not.

While you may honestly believe voting Republican is more beneficial to African Americans and other minorities, telling them they are not smart for not doing so is offensive and patronizing. That's not the way to attract them and sway them to your point of view. The message has to be sincerely welcoming and inclusive and respectful of their inteligence. I'm optimistic that this election may represent a turning point for the Republican party. If they want to survive and continue to be relevent they have to make a sincere effort to be more inclusive. If they do it won't take long to see results. If they don't they should not expect to have a representive in the White House anytime soon.

In theory, maybe. But in reality, that has not been the case, at least not in the past decade or so. I don't blame the past GOP administrations solely, though. It's just been the overall trend.

This article is about 1 year old.. http://www.slate.com/articles/double...cked_down.html
"the rates of unplanned pregnancies and births among poor women now dwarf the fertility rates of wealthier women, and finds that the gap between the two groups has widened significantly over the past five years. The other, by the Center for Work-Life Policy, documents rates of childlessness among corporate professional women that are higher than the childlessness rates of some European countries experiencing fertility crises. Childlessness has increased across most demographic groups but is still highest among professionals. "

"43 percent of the women in their sample of corporate professionals between the ages of 33 and 46 were childless. The rate of childlessness among the Asian American professional women in the study was a staggering 53 percent."

"Then, reinforcing the cycle, the very fact of having a child increases a woman's chances of being poor."

I'm not blaming any one party for this either, it's a fact of increasing globalization and the increased pressures to do more with less, as you described. But, if the poor have more kids, and the more-comfortable (not necessarily wealthy) have less kids, then the vote advantage any party can get by aiming their platform at a certain financially challenged group becomes more pronounced.

Quote:

Originally Posted by M_Six

I have always chosen to act in my own self-interest. I'm one of your "career-oriented, college-educated professionals." My wife and I have been careful to not overextend. We bought a house that was well within our ability to support on just one of our paychecks. We save a bundle every year for retirement (just over 15% of gross) and have been doing so for a decade now. We don't live in an area we'd like to live; we live where we can afford to live given our incomes and goals.

This, especially the underlined part, sounds like it could be describing me and my wife. This is why it pisses me off when folks who make chronically dumb choices (having way more kids than someone with twice their income can afford, and buying a much fancier house than they should, only to have it foreclosed later) rely on government handouts that I pay for. My cautious approach lines the government coffers and ultimately funds the cleanup of their careless approach.

I am sorry to hear about your parents. Certainly federal subsidies for that kind of care would be something I wouldnt mind my tax dollars going towards, because that sort of illness is not something that results from their own bad choices, not the same as propping someone up because they wanted to have some lifestyle that does not correspond with their means.

Quote:

Originally Posted by M_Six

But I haven't seen any fiscal responsibility from the GOP in decades. They talk a good game, but check the record of the past 40 years and see how the deficit and national debt have climbed under the various administrations. The GOP has consistently failed when it comes to fiscal responsibility.

Yes, you could argue that Clinton's record is better than any of the Bushes, for example. But, the fact that Obama has not reduced the deficit as promised , but instead increased it by more than any other president, I cannot fathom how anyone who claims to care about fiscal responsibility could vote democratic this time.

The same folks who spend themselves into foreclosure are probably also the same folks who would not hold the Democrats to a particularly high standard when it comes to managing money.

While you may honestly believe voting Republican is more beneficial to African Americans and other minorities, telling them they are not smart for not doing so is offensive and patronizing.

Sorry if you thought my message was that "minorities are not smart if they dont vote Republican." Not what I am trying to say. What I hoped to convey is that minorities who dont make thoughtful life choices that would ultimately serve their own best interests are not smart, and if more of them were to start making such choices, interestingly enough they may find that they will end up in a place where the Republican platform will serve their needs better.

If someone has poor career prospects because they have little education, and a few kids to feed (just like their parents did, which is why they dont have any education), then Republicans are not the party for them, for sure. If you find yourself in that hole, you could say that the smart thing is to vote Democrat. But, and even smarter thing to do is to take steps to keep yourself out of that hole in the first place. Yes, there is a lot outside of your control, but having more dependant children than college credits by the time you are 22 is not a good idea, and that is entirely within your control.

I dont believe that voting Republican is necessarily more beneficial to minorites in and of itself. I do think that encouraging them to get to a point where they are "successful" (that's a loaded word I know), is beneficial to everyone in the country, especially those who depend on the tax dollars to fund their entitlements. A party which promises to continue to extend the safety net may not encourage them to take the needed steps to get there.

This article is about 1 year old.. http://www.slate.com/articles/double...cked_down.html
"the rates of unplanned pregnancies and births among poor women now dwarf the fertility rates of wealthier women, and finds that the gap between the two groups has widened significantly over the past five years. The other, by the Center for Work-Life Policy, documents rates of childlessness among corporate professional women that are higher than the childlessness rates of some European countries experiencing fertility crises. Childlessness has increased across most demographic groups but is still highest among professionals. "

"43 percent of the women in their sample of corporate professionals between the ages of 33 and 46 were childless. The rate of childlessness among the Asian American professional women in the study was a staggering 53 percent."

"Then, reinforcing the cycle, the very fact of having a child increases a woman's chances of being poor."

I think I didn't make myself clear there. My fault. I absolutely agree that career oriented women have fewer kids and start later than other groups. I was more concerned with your statement about the GOP benefiting self-sufficient and affluent people more than the Dems could. If you're talking about business owners and the very wealthy, I agree because of tax breaks. But even upper middle class folks can be brought down by a loss of one income or a sudden health issue for them or their parents. And the loss of retirement income due to market shenanigans can devastate anyone. At most the GOP policies may mean a bit more take home pay for me, but I see nothing else of benefit in them. And if you keep widening the gap between rich and poor and go on shrinking the middle class, you end up with an 18th century France type of situation where the wealthy have it all and the vast majority haven't got money to live, let alone prosper.

I've argued that paying a "living wage" to burger flippers is self defeating because as the bottom tier of the wage earners gains discretionary income, they spend it and demand goes up. Then, of course, the prices go up and pretty soon you reach a new equilibrium where it costs $8 for the burger and $300k for a one bedroom shack. But you do need a middle class that is comfortable enough to spend money and keep the economy going. Otherwise it all falls apart. Since 2007 or so there have been way too many formerly comfortable middle class wage earners who have reverted to paycheck to paycheck living. Granted, much of that is their own fault, but much of it is due to corporate greed, the shipping of jobs overseas, and a very unfair stock market. I would like to see the markets more heavily regulated and supervised, not less so.

I watch Formula One racing and have seen the nastiness that is the air in places like India and China. We don't have that problem here because of regulations governing pollution. I don't want to see those rolled back, although I would like to see more sanctions against polluting countries than we've seen. Hurricane Sandy is getting some blame for Romney's loss. Yet the GOP is still arguing that global warming is a myth even as they blame a storm that was largely a product of global warming. The lack of acceptance of science by the GOP drives me nuts.

I certainly don't think the Dems have it all figured out. Far from it. And I detest the far left wingnuts as much as I do the far right ones. But in my admittedly humble estimation, Obama's policies deserve more time to take effect. I don't like seeing the debt grow either, but cutting taxes and gutting the last remaining safety nets for the poor is not going to change the debt problem. We need some reasonable across-the-board cuts and some reasonable tax increases to solve this (if it's even possible at this point). I just don't see any reasonableness in the current GOP policies.

The United States is a representative democracy which is a type of republic. Still it is a democracy so both terms are accurate.

No it isn't, and no they aren't. As I wrote, learn the difference. And - it wasn't meant to sound angy; the difference between a republic and a democracy is critical in understanding our form of government, and why the founders made our country in the form they chose.

No it isn't, and no they aren't. As I wrote, learn the difference. And - it wasn't meant to sound angy; the difference between a republic and a democracy is critical in understanding our form of government, and why the founders made our country in the form they chose.

In the context of my post (below) I'm not sure why you feel this is an important distinction but you now have the floor so you can explain.

Quote:

Originally Posted by BKsBimmer

Calm down. This country is always changing, but it isn't coming to an end. Obama is not Castro and the U.S. is not Cuba. We still live in a democracy with divided government and contrary to your delusional fantasy the president is not a dictator and none of that will change, even in the next 4 years.

And if you keep widening the gap between rich and poor and go on shrinking the middle class, you end up with an 18th century France type of situation where the wealthy have it all and the vast majority haven't got money to live, let alone prosper.

Yes, that is bad. Problem is, that train has already left the station, due to globalization.

Once a businessman sees he can made a widget in China for 1/10 what it costs here, it's REALLY hard, if not impossible to put that genie back in the bottle. So now, your employer eyes you, and thinks how many people in India can do that job, and, assuming your job doesnt get outsourced entirely, you end up with a person being asked to shoulder more weight than before, for less pay, and they cant take time off, and end up, in some cases, having to make the choice between 1 more child vs. financial solvency.

You can only control your own national rules, so even if you got 100% of congress gleefully rowing in the same direction for the best interest of the country, there's nothing they can do to force China or India to level the playing field by paying people a better wage, or forcing factories to install expensive pollution controls, etc.

You can try installing tariffs or things so that the end price of a Chinese-made widget becomes the same as US made, but the increasing globalization and modernization of emerging markets means that America is not the only big market that matters any more. Fact: GM sold more cars in China than it did in the USA in 2010. This aint 1980 anymore, you cant say "jump thru these hoops or we'll stop buying your product", cause they'll just say screw you and sell elsewhere. You could block all imports, force everything to be made local, but then the price would rise, and more people couldnt afford it. iPads would be thousands of dollars each if they were not made in Chinese sweatshops that are so bad the workers kill themselves on a regular basis.

Bottom line is, people gotta realize we cant go back, things will not be the same as they used to be. Not a happy message, but it's the truth. If you punish people by doing business here, they'll take it elsewhere, and make even more profit. It's never been easier to do so.

If you open a tunnel between 2 bodies of water, things will reach equilibrium. If your standard of living is much higher than theirs, then it's gonna suck for you, cause Joe Average in USA will drop down a LOT and Joe Average in China will rise up, and they'll end up the same. Policies which ignore that unfortunate reality will hurt us all.

Hurricane Sandy is getting some blame for Romney's loss. Yet the GOP is still arguing that global warming is a myth even as they blame a storm that was largely a product of global warming.

For the record, I'm a right winger who is not blaming Sandy. If anything, it would have prevented people from getting out to vote in the states which historically tend to vote Democrat, not Republican. It may have cost Obama votes, not Romney. Mabye a wash in the end, because those undecideds who were affected, but could still make it to a polling station, might be more inclined to vote Obama if they felt he handled the tragedy well.

Talking about global warming, this is a good example of how Democrats present an pro-environment argument that sounds better at first, until you think it thru. (it has that in common with a LOT of the left-wing platform, IMHO).

Manufacturing 1 widget produces x amount of carbon footprint if you make it here. BUT, it's much more expensive to make it here than in China, where the lack of controls also means it creates 2x the carbon footprint to make that same widget.

If you implement carbon taxes here or more punitive environmental rules here, then all the production elsewhere will go overseas. What happens then ? Assuming the global aggregate production of widgets stays the same (or goes up because of increased demand in emerging markets), then the world ends up with the same (or more) widgets that it would have had anyways, but twice the pollution hits the atmosphere to make them. Well-meaning, but ill conceived efforts to improve the environment actually make it worse, unless you outlaw the possession of widgets altogether. Of course if places like China and India dont also outlaw those widgets, then you've just killed a lot of jobs and gained nothing.

It's as pointless as having a no-peeing section in 1/2 of a hot-tub, but the other half of the same tub allows all the peeing you want.

Enough of my ranting for tonight. Time for a nice single malt. Good evening to all.

For the record, I'm a right winger who is not blaming Sandy. If anything, it would have prevented people from getting out to vote in the states which historically tend to vote Democrat, not Republican. It may have cost Obama votes, not Romney. Mabye a wash in the end, because those undecideds who were affected, but could still make it to a polling station, might be more inclined to vote Obama if they felt he handled the tragedy well.

Talking about global warming, this is a good example of how Democrats present an pro-environment argument that sounds better at first, until you think it thru. (it has that in common with a LOT of the left-wing platform, IMHO).

Manufacturing 1 widget produces x amount of carbon footprint if you make it here. BUT, it's much more expensive to make it here than in China, where the lack of controls also means it creates 2x the carbon footprint to make that same widget.

If you implement carbon taxes here or more punitive environmental rules here, then all the production elsewhere will go overseas. What happens then ? Assuming the global aggregate production of widgets stays the same (or goes up because of increased demand in emerging markets), then the world ends up with the same (or more) widgets that it would have had anyways, but twice the pollution hits the atmosphere to make them. Well-meaning, but ill conceived efforts to improve the environment actually make it worse, unless you outlaw the possession of widgets altogether. Of course if places like China and India dont also outlaw those widgets, then you've just killed a lot of jobs and gained nothing.

It's as pointless as having a no-peeing section in 1/2 of a hot-tub, but the other half of the same tub allows all the peeing you want.

Enough of my ranting for tonight. Time for a nice single malt. Good evening to all.

I wasn't suggesting the US stand alone in sanctioning polluting countries. It would be the same problem if we stood alone in sanctioning Iran for pursuing nukes. It only works if it's a coalition of countries doing the sanctioning. If the UN can decide to sanction countries for human rights issues or nuclear issues, they should be willing to do it for the good of the global environment. But we all know that is unlikely to happen. To use your analogy, if one person in the hot tub wants to pee and the other doesn't, the hot tub gets polluted. If nine people in the hot tub threaten to beat the snot out of the one person who wants to pee, the hot tub stays clean. You don't reverse the rule against peeing in the hot tub, you enforce it for everyone. It just takes cooperation.

I also wasn't suggesting all Republicans were blaming Sandy for the loss, but there are plenty who are. Not that they think GOP voters couldn't vote, but that the whole thing gave Obama a chance to shine while the campaigning was on hold. Gov. Christie will no doubt pay a heavy price for his praise of Obama.

BTW, I've thought through the whole pro-environment vs pro-business thing. My first job out of school was working as an environmental geologist cleaning up waste sites. I've seen firsthand the damage polluters can cause. In some cases, the damage was inflicted a hundred years before and was still a problem. Once the crap is in the ground or the atmosphere, it can be damn hard to get out. If the developed world as a whole doesn't start setting and enforcing limits, then yes, the Chinas and the Indias of the world will continue to reap an unfair advantage. In the end, we'll all pay for that.

Quote:

Originally Posted by MiddleAgedAl

...having more dependant children than college credits by the time you are 22 is not a good idea...

I just finished a bottle of that not too long ago. But, this time, it was my personal favorite, Macallan 12. (Actually I prefer Macallan 18, but I usually only get to enjoy that if someone else picks up the tab)

I just finished a bottle of that not too long ago. But, this time, it was my personal favorite, Macallan 12. (Actually I prefer Macallan 18, but I usually only get to enjoy that if someone else picks up the tab)

Pricey stuff. We were at Heathrow in October and I saw a 3 bottle sampler pack of The Balvenie with those little one shot bottles, one 15, one 17, and one 21. Still, it was nearly $50 and I thought those are three very expensive shots, but I was very tempted.

I think it was the 21 that put it over the top. Take that 1 out of the equation and the price would drop down significantly I bet.

I've found that once your single malt becomes old enough to vote, the price jump is completely disproportionate to the increase in quality.

Macallan 12, while not cheap, is still doable once in a while, esp if you get it on sale. I dont guzzle it like Budweiser. I've seen Macallan 18 for well over double the price, depending on where you look. For me, it's better, but not THAT much better. Maybe I'm just not enough of an expert to appreciate that difference. Last time I had some was a shot at a restaurant on the companies dime a couple years ago.

I have two fears about delving into single malts: One, I'll drop some serious coin on a bottle and then not like it, or two, I'll really like it and hence pick up another expensive habit (photography being my current money pit).

1) Free contraceptives. Free Abortions. To get the single female vote.
2) unfettered illegal immigration from Mexico. to get the Latino vote.
3) free tax money to the Unions and auto bailout to Ohio. To get the Union vote.
4) The young, the naive, and the brainwashed, they don't need anything given to them, the easiest to control. Good luck getting a job in this economy in the next 4 years as you graduate from college.
5) Obamaphones and welfare. to get the lazy vote.

The rest of us who spend most of their time getting truly informed can pound sand while the rest watch "The View" and "Jon Stewart" for all the important issues.

From here on in I predict nothing but Dem victories here on out.. The demographics are changing to favor the Democratic party.

One Party Rule will forever change America beyond anything we could have imagined just a few short years ago.

Prepare for decline Americans. This is just the beginning.

It is ashame a good, decent, man as Romney could have restored our great society but was drowned out by the fools.

This country has begun on the path to decline, when 51% of the country is on the take socialism wins out 99% of the time.

Agreed. It is a pathetic and disgraceful outcome. This is what happens when you offer free stuff to everyone. Sad thing is, the folks who voted, again, for Obama are too ignorant to understand that nothing is free. They believe all the lies and B.S. he and his liberal cronies spew from their pathetic ideological mouths. And they absolutely know and count on the folks being gullable enough to believe it. This is how they win the majority vote, keep themselves in office, perpetuate their ideolgy and get ever closer to accomplishing their end game of full Government rule over the folks. You call this freedom?

What is it about how we aquired a 16 trillion dollar debt and 1.3 trillion dollar budget deficit that is so difficult to understand? Add to this, staring everyone directly between the eyes, is bankrupt Portugal, Ireland, Italy, Greece and Spain. Hmmm, wonder how they ended up in financial and economic straits? Further, in the U.S. we've got bankrupt California, Nevada, Michigan. It isn't a coincidence that these are states run by Democrats.

It doesn't take a genius to understand that the cost of entitlement programs and Union driven excessive salaries/retirement pensions have to be funded. What's worse is that Obama and the democrats have ignorant voters believing that raising taxes on those who work the hardest will resolve the issue. What a joke! You could take all the money from the top 1 percenters and it wouldn't be enough to cover the cost of running our government for 6 months! As if raising taxes would really put a dent in our 16 trillion dollar debt obligation!

And so it goes, our debt will continue to rise until we end up like Greece. Ask yourself why the citizens in Greece are rioting in the streets and fighting against their own government. It is because there is no one left to tax to fund their government entitlement programs. Everyone is on the dole. Duh! Now the government has to implement austerity measures to survive. The people are addicted to free stuff and now the government wants to cut back on the free stuff and the folks are pissed.

Get it?

Obama and the left have ignorant voters believing that half our country is unable to get off their lazy ass and make a living! What a freakin' joke! They have ignorant voters believing that conservatives are bad people because they don't want to help out by paying more in taxes. Really? Helping the helpless is a given and we all are obligated to do so through taxation. However, helping the lazy is a much different story.

Obama has ignorant voters believing that to be successful in America should be quick, easy and without failure.

In the meantime, Obama wants to let the Bush tax cuts expire, raise income taxes and capital gains taxes on investments.

What do you think this is going to do to our anemic economic recovery?

There is a reason why we have been the most powerful nation in the world. There is a reason why people, from all over the world, want to come to America to achieve their dreams.

Unfortunately, this opportunity is quickly eroding as we are becoming ever more like the countries that immigrants leave because they didn't otherwise have the same freedoms and opportunites from where they are coming from.

What does Life, Liberty, Freedom and the Pursuit of Happiness mean to you?

Name any other country, in the history of the world, that has ever thrived and still exists today on Socialism. Just one.

I'll end by quoting Margaret Thatcher: "The problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money".

It won't be until the pain is felt with significant cuts for out of control spending that folks will realize that its too late. Then when you had to rely on the government for so long that in time of need - the government should be the last place you depend on when EVERYONE begins to struggle.

I say the hell with it - Raise taxes on the wealthy. Make it 100% of their income since they don't deserve it. Obviously 35-50% isn't enough even though the majority of the Federal revenue is provided by them already. What right do the rich have to that money made on the backs of the working poor?? It belongs to the poor/middle-class, not the rich.

Also - let's do Single payer health care. Abolish all Health Insurance providers and let the Fed. Government be the single cost provider. And the next logical step is why should doctors make money off the misery of others - take all their money too as its unethical to enrich yourself for problems not the fault of the individual. To me that makes a lot of sense to be in line with the moral qualifications of the left.

Let's gut Defense to nothing but 2 aircraft carriers (without bayonets obviously) and that should be enough to protect our homeland and nothing else while finally putting a fork in the military industrial complex. Pull every troop out of any country not called U.S. of A. since its none of our damn business to be involved in any country's affair. I don't care how many of their own people they kill.

All teachers, cops, firefighters and union workers should have a minimum salary of 120k, with full pension, no cost medical and 6 weeks vacation. That's a reasonable working wage to be able to afford decent things in life. That should be regulated against every business.

And finally remove all border agents as it is discriminatory against all struggling people of the world to come here and make a decent living. They are nothing but undocumented so what right do we have to tell them they can't come in just because they misplaced their papers?? Each immigrant child should get free elementary, high school and college education - if it comes at the cost of an American citizen, then they should pay their fair share since that is unjust since you were lucky enough to be born here.

As a token of Democrat appreciation - conservative women will be allowed to keep any babies they create and not be forced to abort them. Only if population doesn't get too high and we don't go to a one-child policy. But gender selection will be allowed so if you always wanted a boy but got all girls - you can legally abort them in or out of the womb until you get what you want.

If Republicans do ALL THAT - then we would be inclusive enough to finally get the Latino, Single-woman, Gay, Black and Middle-class vote. Only then will the Republican party amount to any political influence - only catch is that you'll have to change your name... to Democrats.